I can’t find any. I’d like to know about one, and see how it worked out.
When the Washington Post’s editorial staff essentially calls a Democratic President’s conduct an embarrassment. it really must have been embarrassing…and it was. Obama’s sole explanation for his decision, which he has, as is his style, dithered over for years, was this:
“Ultimately if we’re going to prevent large parts of the Earth from becoming inhospitable or uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we’re going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them.”
But killing the pipeline will keep no fossil fuels in the ground. So the reason really is this:
“America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious actions to fight climate change and, frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership.”
Ah. So America will show it is serious about climate change by killing a project that all agree will have no tangible, long-term, short-term, measurable effects on climate change at all. This is Obama logic, as we have seen many times: good intentions is enough; results don’t matter. If his decision won’t help reduce the risk of parts of the Earth becoming “inhospitable or uninhabitable in our lifetimes”—a risk that is also measurable and speculative at best—then the purpose of it isn’t to prove leadership. True, it proves atrocious leadership, but Obama is cynical, not stupid. The decision is political. Its only tangible benefit is to the Democratic Party, which feels the need to make the welfare of the U.S. and its citizens subordinate to the fanaticism of the environmentalist movement.
“Had the decision been based solely on the project’s economic, energy security and environmental merits, I suspect the outcome would have been different. Keystone would have created 9,000 construction jobs in the U.S. Out of all the countries from which the U.S. imports oil (Mexico, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Venezuela) Canada is the only one with any greenhouse gas regulations.”
Oh, there are disputes about the jobs; one estimate pegs the number of full-time jobs over the span of the construction as 50, which isn’t much. It is something, though. Cancelling the pipeline accomplishes nothing. Barack Obama cannot prove his leadership, because he has already proven that he cannot lead in countless ways, for seven long and destructive years.
The liberal Washington Post, which has never formally endorsed a Republican candidate for President..never!… called the decision “killing a pipeline in order to satisfy emotional needs, ” and wrote of Obama’s demonstration of leadership in this instance:
President Obama rejected the Keystone XL oil pipeline on Friday, ending an unseemly political dispute marked by activist hysteria, GOP hyperbole, presidential weakness and a general incapability of various sides to see the policy question for what it was: a mundane infrastructure approval that didn’t pose a high threat to the environment but also didn’t promise much economic development. The politicization of this regulatory decision, and the consequent warping of the issue to the point that it was described in existential terms, was a national embarrassment, reflecting poorly on the United States’ capability to treat parties equitably under law and regulation.
Approved or not, the Keystone Pipeline was not a big deal. The deluded and incompetent leadership of the President, however, is a very big deal.